So, despite all the reviews and negative community and review site feedback... do any of you guys still have the urge to plunge for a BD setup? I have this urge to pickup a 8120 and a ASUS CH 990FX simply because I want to overclock an 8 core CPU. I know it seems dumb, but I have fun tinkering with new hardware more so than having the 'fastest stuff available'. I know I sound like a hypocrit because I stated earlier that I wasn't too happy with the BD results... but, I'm still intrigued. Anyone else in the same boat?

I know the feeling. I bought an E-350 board to try out and now I barely use it, but it's a fun little system for older games and stuff, and it was fun tinkering with it. I love new stuff that has smaller process nodes, new architectures or less chips.

For my main system however, I'm currently pricing out a 2600K + 6950 setup as I just want a nice computer that will last. To me, BD just doesn't seem like an efficient upgrade from a 4GHz PII X4 955.

I was a little let down by the results. Seeing it lose in alot of benches at a 4.6 OC versus a stock i7 2600k.
I mean I just built my i7 rig so I am set for awhile. I mean I haven't had an AMD since my Opteron 170 and that was a killer rig, when I "upgraded" to an E6600 I still felt the old Opty was a snappier system.
I will wait and see how Piledriver works out maybe then I may make the jump back to AMD.

With 75% of sites using ES chips, and JF-AMD saying ES chips were not indicitive of final silicon performance, I need to get one of my own before I'll truly beleive these chips are as bad as EVERY site says.

Tweaktown did a gaming review and were not put off BD. They say the BD platform is solid and the gaming use of BD isn't poor. In fact, they say this:

Bulldozer has got issues, but not all the blame can be put on AMD. There are areas outside of AMDs control that hasn't given them the ability to perform as well as it could. I think as the optimization of Bulldozer is sorted, we'll see more performance on this platform.

For now, though, the FX-8150 isn't a bad chip when you consider the price point. If you're focusing on gaming as well, you can see that we never see the 2600k offer us a playable setup and the FX-8150 offer an unplayable one. Instead, they both offer playable, or they're both unplayable.

Bulldozer as a platform looks to be quite strong, though, and I would've loved to have seen that FX-6100. No doubt we'll get one, but we should've had one at launch. Ultimately I feel the FX-8150 isn't bad, it's a good price and it's got some serious potential. If AMD let more than just one model do the talking for the Bulldozer platform at launch, I think its reception would've been quite different.

Click to expand...

BD's problem was the hype. And that was kinda AMD's fault. The cpu isn't bad.

I don't "want" one but if the circumstances are right, I would buy one. AMD's overall platform cost still tends to be cheaper than Intels so if I want a cheap computer that will get the job done, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Bulldozer chip.

i feel like cartman running arround the store trying to get the damn Wii.....
i dunno if it will fail since i´ve seen many reviews now and they still don´t show the same
results, performance , wattage ....

i don´t give a sh*t if it fails, on my new Rig build i´m at a point of no return now

For me personally the price doesn't justify the power consumption over Sandy Bridge, not only is SB faster, but in the longer run, it will be MUCH cheaper. Needles to say, BD is NOT a failed chip, but as mentioned above it's hype was too big, I bet alot of people could get good use of this chip, just not enthusiast grade overclockers...

For me personally the price doesn't justify the power consumption over Sandy Bridge, not only is SB faster, but in the longer run, it will be MUCH cheaper. Needles to say, BD is NOT a failed chip, but as mentioned above it's hype was too big, I bet alot of people could get good use of this chip, just not enthusiast grade overclockers...

Click to expand...

Can you link me to one of the reviews where it shows high power consumption?

I was a little let down by the results. Seeing it lose in alot of benches at a 4.6 OC versus a stock i7 2600k.
I mean I just built my i7 rig so I am set for awhile. I mean I haven't had an AMD since my Opteron 170 and that was a killer rig, when I "upgraded" to an E6600 I still felt the old Opty was a snappier system.
I will wait and see how Piledriver works out maybe then I may make the jump back to AMD.

Click to expand...

I'm STILL running that old Opty Denmark, and badly need an upgrade... for me, since I primarily game on this box, and haven't done any Maya or Bryce rendering in a couple of years, I'm afraid I'll end up snagging a solid OC board with 6G SATA, a couple of USB3's (I really wish I could snag a good board cheap, with a nice sound on it like the CHV), and go 2600k

Speaking of, 'G8R, How do you like your P67? I really want to go with the X58 set... but I'm considering

I'm STILL running that old Opty Denmark, and badly need an upgrade... for me, since I primarily game on this box, and haven't done any Maya or Bryce rendering in a couple of years, I'm afraid I'll end up snagging a solid OC board with 6G SATA, a couple of USB3's (I really wish I could snag a good board cheap, with a nice sound on it like the CHV), and go 2600k

Speaking of, 'G8R, How do you like your P67? I really want to go with the X58 set... but I'm considering

Click to expand...

No real faults with it at all. I mean yeah I went with a bit of an "oddball" MoBo but it hasn't let me down at all yet.
I just actually retired the Opty 170 rig, my Ex wife was still running it. I built her an i5 760 budget build. I am seriously considering putting it back together and seeing how it runs on Win 7.

I've not run 7 on mine yet, just xp 32 and 64... I was reading the article last night regarding the diff in performance for PCIx 8 and 16, which has swayed me a little in whether or not I NEED dual 16 channels, or if I can manage with dual 8's.... So many choices, and I want to decide before I'm out for a week and a half

Yeah the Mobo I built mine on was the Abit AT8 32X and I have a 4870 1024Gb for GFX.
Actually you can see it in it's "former glory" when I was running it. I switched it back to air and no Xfire for it.

So how come none of the game benchmarks are using BC2 to bench the cpus with. To me this and starcraft are the perfect games to test CPU performance with. I would like to see how BD hold up there. BC2 is very multithreaded and SC2 would show clock speed and core efficiency.

So how come none of the game benchmarks are using BC2 to bench the cpus with. To me this and starcraft are the perfect games to test CPU performance with. I would like to see how BD hold up there. BC2 is very multithreaded and SC2 would show clock speed and core efficiency.

So how come none of the game benchmarks are using BC2 to bench the cpus with. To me this and starcraft are the perfect games to test CPU performance with. I would like to see how BD hold up there. BC2 is very multithreaded and SC2 would show clock speed and core efficiency.

Click to expand...

I actually did see some benching with SC2... lemme see if I can find the review...

So how come none of the game benchmarks are using BC2 to bench the cpus with. To me this and starcraft are the perfect games to test CPU performance with. I would like to see how BD hold up there. BC2 is very multithreaded and SC2 would show clock speed and core efficiency.